Genetic Population Structure of Lane Snapper Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758) in Western Atlantic: Implications for Conservation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I completed my evaluation of the manuscript diversity-3044000 „Genetic population structure of lane snapper Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758) in the Western Atlantic: implications for conservation “submitted to Diversity. This study addresses an important topic evaluation of the genetic diversity of a commercially important species. The newly collected dataset is from a limited region, but the authors increased the dataset by more sequences from a larger area and developed a well-balanced study. The text structure is clear and well-written. I appreciate the list of used software and detailed supplementary material. The manuscript brings new knowledge for nature conservation managers.

 

Specific Comments:

L2: I suggest moving the word “implication” to a new row.

L20: I suggest removing the word “model”.

L36: I suggest rephrasing the sentence “The findings may inform…” for sure, the people will be informed, and I think, more (a reaction) is expected.

L105: Please, add in the text, the sequences were obtained from GenBank.

L118: Please, add in the text, where the rest of the tissue is stored and can be obtained from.

L121: I suggest moving Figure 1 to a new page. The figure should be connected with the captions. The locations of new samplings and obtained sequences can be separated by different colours.

L141: Why only 83 fish were analysed and not 103?

L186: AMOVA should be defined.

L196: PopArt software should be cited.

L408: If possible, please, add common English names to the species.

L493: Please, specify the ID of available sequences in GenBank.

Species Latin names should be in Italics in the reference list (e.g., L571, L576, L581, L584, L587,…)

Author Response

Dear,

Thank you very much for your time in reviewing the manuscript. Below you will find the responses to each comment.

Sincerely,

I completed my evaluation of the manuscript diversity-3044000 „Genetic population structure of lane snapper Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758) in the Western Atlantic: implications for conservation “submitted to Diversity. This study addresses an important topic evaluation of the genetic diversity of a commercially important species. The newly collected dataset is from a limited region, but the authors increased the dataset by more sequences from a larger area and developed a well-balanced study. The text structure is clear and well-written. I appreciate the list of used software and detailed supplementary material. The manuscript brings new knowledge for nature conservation managers.

We sincerely appreciate your detailed evaluation and positive comments on our. We are pleased to hear that you consider our study important for the evaluation of genetic diversity in a commercially significant species.

We are glad that you found the expansion of our dataset with more sequences from a larger area to contribute to a well-balanced study. Your praise regarding the clarity of the text structure and the quality of the supplementary materials, as well as the list of software used, is greatly appreciated.

We are particularly happy to know that our work brings valuable new knowledge for nature conservation managers. Your recognition and positive feedback are a great motivation for us and reinforce our dedication to research and biodiversity conservation.

Thank you again for your time and for your contribution to the review process.

 

Specific Comments:

L2: I suggest moving the word “implication” to a new row.

R: The change was made

L20: I suggest removing the word “model”.

R: The change was made

L36: I suggest rephrasing the sentence “The findings may inform…” for sure, the people will be informed, and I think, more (a reaction) is expected.

R: The change was made to “These findings have the potential to significantly impact marine conservation and management efforts in the region, both at local and regional scales. It is anticipated that they will not only inform but also elicit a response, driving further action towards effective conservation measures.”

 

L105: Please, add in the text, the sequences were obtained from GenBank.

2. Thanks for the observation. The description of each sequence used from GenBank is described in section 2.3. However, we add the following text:… (See 2.3. Compilation of sequences across the Western Atlantic for more information)

L118: Please, add in the text, where the rest of the tissue is stored and can be obtained from.

1. The following phrase was added to the text: “The rest of the aliquot are deposited in the Molecular Ecology laboratory of the Universidad Catolica de la Santisima de Concepción in Chile. “

L121: I suggest moving Figure 1 to a new page. The figure should be connected with the captions. The locations of new samplings and obtained sequences can be separated by different colours.

1. The change was made

L141: Why only 83 fish were analysed and not 103?

1. Because the remaining 20 samples showed signs of hybridization. Therefore, the decision was made not to include it so as not to affect the analyses. However, we add the following phrase in parentheses “(The other 20 showed the presence of hybridization and that is why they were not included in these analyses)”

L186: AMOVA should be defined.

1. AMOVA Description was added to the text.

L196: PopArt software should be cited.

1. PopArt cite was added

L408: If possible, please, add common English names to the species.

1. English common names were added

L493: Please, specify the ID of available sequences in GenBank.

2024. The sequence ID was added to the text. However, they will be available for download until August 2024.

Species Latin names should be in Italics in the reference list (e.g., L571, L576, L581, L584, L587,…)

R: The change was made

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The figures are all of low resolution and cannot be seen clearly.

2. Figure 1 has more than 4 sampling sites, which is very confusing.

3. Lines 159-170: How can you ensure the reliability of the data from GenBank?

4. There is a lack of BSP analysis for different geographic populations.

5. The styles need to meet journal requirements.

Author Response

Dear, 

Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful review of our manuscript. Your insights and feedback are invaluable to us.

Best regards,

1. The figures are all of low resolution and cannot be seen clearly.

Thank you for bringing this concern to our attention. We have taken your feedback seriously and have made improvements to the resolution of all figures in the manuscript. Additionally, we have provided high-resolution versions of the figures in a 300 dpi PDF file for better clarity.

2. Figure 1 has more than 4 sampling sites, which is very confusing.

Our collection was only at 4 sites in Honduras, but we used sequences that were collected in other parts of the Atlantic. Sites were considered only if they were data published in a peer review journal. We have added in the text of the figure that we collected the sites in Honduras and the other sites are from publications of previous GenBank studies. Please let me know if it's still confusing.

The text now looks like this:

Figure 1. Location of the study localities to assess genetic population diversity and connectivity of lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris). Abbreviations represent sampling localities. Green Samples from Honduras: TE (Tela), CU (Cuero y Salado), CA (Cayos Cochinos), TR (Trujillo). Red Genbanck sequense: Gulf of Mexico: Pl (Port Isabel), AR (Aransas), Pl (Port Lavaca), GA (Galveston), LO (Louisiana), AL (Alabama) [35]; Florida: FW (Florida West), FK (Florida Keys), FE (Florida West) [38] and CO (Colombia) [37]; Puerto Rico: PW (Puerto Rico West), PE (Puerto Rico East), ST (Saint Thomas), SC (Saint Croix) [40]; Brazil: AM (Amapá), PA (Pará), MA (Maranhão), CE (Ceará), RG (Rio Grande do Norte), BA (Bahia) and ES (Espírito Santo) [37]

3. Lines 159-170: How can you ensure the reliability of the data from GenBank? To ensure the reliability of the data from GenBank, we have taken several key steps. Firstly, we have ensured that the data used is supported by publications in peer-reviewed journals, adding an extra layer of reliability as the sequences have been evaluated by experts in the field. Additionally, we have found a high concordance between the GenBank sequences and our own sequences, validating the accuracy and reliability of the GenBank data in our study. GenBank also reviews and validates sequences before accepting them into their database, ensuring the quality and accuracy of the information. These steps give us confidence in the reliability of the GenBank data used in our study, ensuring the robustness and validity of our results.
4. There is a lack of BSP analysis for different geographic populations.

The absence of BSP analysis for different geographical populations can be explained by our initial objective, which was to reconstruct the general genetic pattern across the entire study area. This broader perspective aimed to understand the overall trends and dynamics of the species as a whole. However, we recognize that conducting BSP analyses for individual geographical populations could provide more detailed information on demographic histories and population dynamics at a finer scale. We appreciate your suggestion and will consider incorporating such analyses in future studies to enhance the depth and specificity of our findings.

The styles need to meet journal requirements.

Thank you very much for your observation. We have conducted a thorough revision to better align the style of our manuscript with the journal's requirements.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Table 1: The S7-1 gene was amplified in 188 samples?

2. Figure 3: It is not appropriate to use the haplotype data from NCBI to create the haplotype network. Additionally, there are too many colors, making it difficult to distinguish between locations.

Author Response

Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful review of our manuscript. Your insights and feedback are invaluable to us.

Best regards,

1. Table 1: The S7-1 gene was amplified in 188 samples?

Thank you for your observation. We had a transcription error, which has now been corrected and the correct values have been inserted.

2. Figure 3: It is not appropriate to use the haplotype data from NCBI to create the haplotype network. Additionally, there are too many colors, making it difficult to distinguish between locations.

Thank you for your observation. We have made changes to the text on page 206 as follows: "The published mtDNA ND4 sequences were obtained from GenBank [35,37,39,46]" to specify that these are sequences used for analysis, not haplotypes.

Additionally, in Figure 3, we clarified in the description that the important aspect to highlight in the image is the color scales. The text now reads: “The colors in the plot correspond to the localities indicated in the legend: cream for Honduras, green for Colombia, blue scale for Brazil, purple scale for Gulf of Mexico, yellow scale for Florida, and red scale for Puerto Rico.”